I just googled it as well. I concede that there are some uses of the phrase specifying thoughtfulness. However, you really ought to include whim, or random when you are searching for the phrase. Context will make it clear that whimsy, randomness or capriciousness (another word to include with "pick and choose" googling) is commonly understood to be inherent in "pick and choose". Next time, perform a more thorough inspection before declaring victory, my friend.
Hmm? Inherent? No. Many of the definitions make that perfectly clear, no less. Picking and choosing can be done whimsically. There was never any argument against that. The counterargument was that it does not need to be done whimsically and, in fact, it
clearly wasn't being used in that way at the place in question. That's the crux of the matter. You're demanding that it
needs to be whimsical and, when presented with evidence that it does not need to be such, you're asking me to restrict the allowed evidence to only the information that confirms that it can be used like that and throw out the evidence that it does not need to be? Wow. That's a dishonest restriction.
Except, when one doesn't half-ass one's search, normal usage becomes a bit more clear.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Thank you for the laugh.
Interesting assertions. Do you consider, say Saudi Arabia or Iran to be fundamentalist Christian? Because my claims also apply to them.
You're really, really bad at paying attention to what's being said, eh? Both by yourself and others.
Oh, (you are now thinking) fine, wareyin was talking about fundamentalist Abramic religions.
AHAHAHAHAHA! Again, thank you for the laugh.
Very well, is Hillary Clinton an example of a fundamentalist Christian to you? I ask because I'm sure you, with your vastly better reading comprehension and all, have surely noticed that she and her religion have been brought up in this thread, and my claims also apply to her. I mean, if you are using some definition of Christian that is so skewed as to view mainline Methodists as fundamentalists, then I can see how you might think the way you do.
eta: Also, it appears your reading comprehension may have failed you again. Following back through my conversation with dann, a normal reader might be able to see who brought up Christians, and that normal reader might apply my continued insistence that I was not talking only about Christians as a sort of "context" to my claims. There is a reason I used "believer" rather than Christian, after all.
Yeah, seriously, take a step back and pay attention. It's not even worth dignifying the rest of this with a response after how clearly you showed off how wrong-headed you were being at the beginning and failed to fix it after you finally understood that it was wrong-headed.
Well son of a gun, you do realize my claims apply to more that just fundamentalist Christians! Progress!
Progress for you. It
should have been quite clear the
whole time. Good job, though! You can accept some of the obvious, even if it didn't convince you to go back to what you had written already and remove or alter the parts that were clearly springing forth from your misunderstandings.
You have limited the available evidence you have considered in order to crow about how wrong I am. Whether that is intentional, or simply because your reading comprehension perhaps isn't as good as you think, I don't know.
No. Amusingly enough, you're dishonestly trying to limit the available evidence to only that which you think confirms your claim. And I'm very much going to keep poking at your reading comprehension, yes, when you're failing at the basics of such. Those basics include paying attention to what you, yourself, actually said, and what the responses to them actually said.
